Re: [MMUSIC] draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp-07 SCTP SDP syntax question

On 3/10/2014 4:55 AM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> On 10/2/14 2:31 PM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>>> Keep in mind that the purpose of 
>>>> draft-ejzak-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg is NOT to negotiate
>>>> the usage of the SCTP association.
>>>>
>>>> It is assumed that the usage of the SCTP association is data 
>>>> channel, and the draft defines a
>>>> mechanism to negotiate data channels on that SCTP association.
>>>
>>> The purpose is to negotiate the use of channels, which is almost the 
>>> same as negotiating the use of > individual SCTP streams within an 
>>> SCTP association.
>>
>> Correct. But, it is not used to negotiate the SCTP association usage, 
>> which I think is what Christian has been talking about. It assumes 
>> that the SCTP association is used for data channels.
>
> Yes. But for the most part Christian is talking about stream/channel 
> usages that have not yet been defined. When the are defined, they 
> could be done so using channels or something else. The main constraint 
> here is enabling this stuff to work with webrtc.
>
> I think that constraint is effectively forcing the use of the data 
> channel association usage.
>
> And this is all hypothetical because draft-ejak is far from complete. 
> So, if it goes forward at all it may end up different from what it is 
> now.

[CNG] I've been talking about both, negotiating the SCTP association 
usage and/or the usage of the individual SCTP streams/data channels. 
Paul is correct in that I'm thinking of usages/protocols that have not 
yet been defined. I'm trying to understand the process on how these 
would be added in the future to situations where data channel is used 
and situations where data channel is not used.

>
>     Thanks,
>     Paul
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>